Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

And that they have an entire championship and governing body to themselves that they don't really need the Olympics.

Just that saying it is not particulary athletic is way off mark

The definition of Athletic is "of or pertaining to athletes; involving the use of physical skills or capabilities, as strength, agility, or stamina". Now Auto Racing is skilled but it doesn't require the use of strength, agility or stamina. It is physically "skilled" in the way carpentry, metal working, painting or sculpting are physically skilled, and no one would describe those as being "athletic", or having a place in the Olympics. The same goes for auto racing, or shooting.

I think that the ROKMC functions more like the British RMC as a quick-reaction force, than the actual Marines of the Russian and American armies which are expeditionary (politically correct term for invasion) force, I could be wrong because they have tank battalions for "wall smashing" operations.

The USMC is both, or rather, has elements of both, being of a much larger organization than the ROKMC. I would imagine the Russians

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I would never have a hope of doing well in any Olympic Sport (due to being tremendously unfit), but with a lot of practice, I could do well in Shooting. My lack of any physical ability would not set me back. Sense of timing and self control is not the same as, say, the physical strength to throw a javelin.

Bench shooting maybe

By your criteria though, what about stuff like diving? after all, every sport have a different set of physical skills/abilities involved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

The problem with Auto racing is that it's as much about the car as about the driver inside. Doesn't fit what the Olympics is about ("Faster, Higher, Stronger")

Depends on the particular type of racing. The higher level (and thus more regulated) races have strict limitations and specifications on the machines, leading to there being little difference between vehicles, I don't think you're giving nearly enough credits to the human elements in auto-racing, as seen in:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

The definition of Athletic is "of or pertaining to athletes; involving the use of physical skills or capabilities, as strength, agility, or stamina". Now Auto Racing is skilled but it doesn't require the use of strength, agility or stamina. It is physically "skilled" in the way carpentry, metal working, painting or sculpting are physically skilled, and no one would describe those as being "athletic", or having a place in the Olympics. The same goes for auto racing, or shooting.

O_O

Now, a driver doesn't need to be a heavy weight lifter or a marathon runner (though training regiments do involve lifting and running ), but to say that auto racing does not require strength or stamina is so off the mark I don't know where to begin. The physical demands placed on a driver on a professional course is no joke - even in NASCAR where they're making 1000 left-turns as I call it, the drivers are under a lot of force and stress throughout the race.

By your criteria though, what about stuff like diving? after all, every sport have a different set of physical skills/abilities involved.

Diving is more physical then shooting would be, though not as athletic perhaps as other sports. That said, Diving is more interesting to watch then Shooting, where the action is so precise that the spectator can't really see what's going on.

Quote:

Depends on the particular type of racing. The higher level (and thus more regulated) races have strict limitations and specifications on the machines, leading to there being little difference between vehicles, I don't think you're giving nearly enough credits to the human elements in auto-racing.

I'm not too familiar with auto-racing, I have to confess. If the machines are so limited, I think that makes for a less interesting event. With auto racing, I'm more interested in the designers and technicians who make the machines, then the drivers who get the glory by driving it (but hey, I studied Engineering in College).

Diving is more physical then shooting would be, though not as athletic perhaps as other sports. That said, Diving is more interesting to watch then Shooting, where the action is so precise that the spectator can't really see what's going on.

I'd say both are equally boring to watch. As a matter of fact, most Olympic sports are terrible as spectator sports, but then again that's not what the Olympic is about.

Quote:

I'm not too familiar with auto-racing, I have to confess. If the machines are so limited, I think that makes for a less interesting event. With auto racing, I'm more interested in the designers and technicians who make the machines, then the drivers who get the glory by driving it (but hey, I studied Engineering in College).

It's no more limiting than having weight classes in boxing. Again, you're really not giving enough credit to the drivers and the demands of racing here. The techs are important, but if driving is so easy, they'd be doing it themselves.

This sums it up pretty well, it's directed specifically at NASCAR, but many of the points applies to other type of racing as well.

The definition of Athletic is "of or pertaining to athletes; involving the use of physical skills or capabilities, as strength, agility, or stamina". Now Auto Racing is skilled but it doesn't require the use of strength, agility or stamina. It is physically "skilled" in the way carpentry, metal working, painting or sculpting are physically skilled, and no one would describe those as being "athletic", or having a place in the Olympics. The same goes for auto racing, or shooting.

It does....a lot.

It's sitting in an oven going at speeds that put enormous strain on the muscles and joints.

Same reason why you don't say piloting a fighter jet is not physically demanding

I'd say both are equally boring to watch. As a matter of fact, most Olympic sports are terrible as spectator sports, but then again that's not what the Olympic is about.

Maybe not in its origins or its culture, but the Olympics today are all about spectators, particularly those watching on television via networks that are paying millions and billions of dollars for the rights.

I think the Olympics lost its way when it began allowing professionals to play and added sports like tennis and basketball which are simply another venue for professionals in those sports to compete. Even though I am a golfer, I don't believe golf should be an Olympic sport either, not when it comes at costs of a sport called "Greco-Roman" for a reason.

The situation was complicated in the Cold War years when it was an open secret that the Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellites fielded teams with members who were amateurs in name only. The US victory over Russia in hockey at Lake Placid remains celebrated because the Americans fielded a team of collegiates who could defeat the mighty Russian "amateurs." So the IOC decided to resolve this problem by letting professionals play and adding events like tennis precisely to showcase professionals. Did having the "Dream Team" play basketball at the Olympics boost US television ratings? Of course it did. Did it undermine the whole notion of the Olympics as a showcase for amateurs? Of course it did.

For those wondering why sports like dressage continue on while wrestling was cut you need only look at who competes in and watches these types of equestrian events. People with money. People that the likes of Mercedes-Benz wants to advertise to. Golf is another example. I'm sure we'll see the course in Rio littered with signage like we see in European and Asian events with ads for UBS and BMW.

Piloting a fighter jet is physically demanding, but I've never heard anyone describe it as athletic.

Not sure if serious

I'd imagine it's because fighter jets aren't really associated with sports. There are many activities in the military that are quite physically demanding and would certainly require its participants to be "athletic", but you'd never hear people describe them as "athletic" events.

If majority of that 2.9m is the type of the bunch of 20-plus-year-old S-Koreans I used to regularly see at my local casino (and most of which the suits have to be called in to "escort out"), then I am putting my money on the North Koreans.

I thought I was one of those boys who don't turn to men post-conscription and still remain as a softie who grumbles and pouts, apparently these ones are worse. Trash talking the croupiers, behaving in an arrogant way when they are denied further alcohol, and attempting to attack security, then sobbing away when their old man couldn't negotiate with the CSO not to hand them over to the police for throwing cards/chips at a female staff and cutting her face.

Makes me want to smack them over their heads - didn't the army teach those boys something called humility? With that attitude any junior counterintelligence officer could easily flip them or be pissed off enough to put a round between their eyes should they get captured.

Most likely those brats were the ones that escaped conscription. I always notice a difference between those who had been and who had not been in the military.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Never heard anything about the ROKMC soldiers, but being a spearhead troop rather than part of the "grinder" to clean up the trapped enemy the QRF has cut-off, I think they do have better training in counter-guerilla warfare to maintain their barrier against infiltrating reinforcements.

I think that the ROKMC functions more like the British RMC as a quick-reaction force, than the actual Marines of the Russian and American armies which are expeditionary (politically correct term for invasion) force, I could be wrong because they have tank battalions for "wall smashing" operations.

Let's just say that the ROKMC is basically the elite of the regular forces, a special forces that is not a special force. It's an interesting concept, where you expect special-level training/abilities while using them as regular forces.

I'd imagine it's because fighter jets aren't really associated with sports. There are many activities in the military that are quite physically demanding and would certainly require its participants to be "athletic", but you'd never hear people describe them as "athletic" events.

For me, Athletics is all about putting the emphasis on the human body. In autodriving it's not really about the Human body, but about how well the Human can manipulate a machine (albeit in harsh conditions). In shooting it's how well a Human can manipulate another machine (albeit at obscenely high accuracy), but in both cases the power is originating in the Machine, not the Human body. In every other Olympic sport, the power that drives the movement originates entirely in the Human body, and that's why I don't think either fit in the Olympics. The same goes for the Equestrian events as well.

For me, I think the Olympic "Athletics" should celebrate and demonstrate the raw power and capabilities of what the Human body is capable of. Shooting is hard, I won't deny it, but when I watch Shooting it feels more like the Gun is what has the power and agency, even though the Guns are all of standardised designs.

It would be like if instead of Shot-put, we had Cannon aiming, aiming a cannon is hard, but (ask any artilleryman), but as a sport it wouldn't really feel like it was about the power of the human body. Shot-put, on the other hand, is. Not only that, but I think that Olympic sports are at their best when they use minimal "simple" equipment, things you can imagine our distant ancestors using.

Let's just say that the ROKMC is basically the elite of the regular forces, a special forces that is not a special force. It's an interesting concept, where you expect special-level training/abilities while using them as regular forces.

I'm with Don on the athletics discussion. I can be completely wowed and respect the skill of a shooter, pilot, or race-car driver, and acknowledge the physical components of each, but I don't think it fits the definition of an athletic event, really.

For me, Athletics is all about putting the emphasis on the human body. In autodriving it's not really about the Human body, but about how well the Human can manipulate a machine (albeit in harsh conditions). In shooting it's how well a Human can manipulate another machine (albeit at obscenely high accuracy), but in both cases the power is originating in the Machine, not the Human body. In every other Olympic sport, the power that drives the movement originates entirely in the Human body, and that's why I don't think either fit in the Olympics. The same goes for the Equestrian events as well.

I don't think people really have problems with your idea of what should or shouldn't be in the Olympics, which frankly has been changed rather arbitrarily over the years. The issue is when you started to put down other sports in the process, at least that's how it came across to me.

Quote:

Shooting is hard, I won't deny it, but when I watch Shooting it feels more like the Gun is what has the power and agency, even though the Guns are all of standardised designs.

Then I'd say you're looking at it from the wrong angle. If it was about how much damage you can do to the target, then sure, but that's no the point of the competition - it's all about seeing if the shooter has the ability to accurately put the round on the target.

In many ways it's quite similar to archery, neither are really in-your-face about sheer physical power, but rather concentrate on the physical finesse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ridwan

Well I would think that what makes ROKMC unique is that they effectively operate as distinct arm of ROK armed forces, instead as part of navy. Indonesian Marine Corps is still under The Navy.

Same thing for the USMC, which is both designated AND operates as its own branch of service.

Diving is more physical then shooting would be, though not as athletic perhaps as other sports. That said, Diving is more interesting to watch then Shooting, where the action is so precise that the spectator can't really see what's going on.

Why don't Olympic shooting events have ultra high frame rate cameras to capture shots of the bullets in flight and hitting the target to show the audience in replay?